Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the In Stream Flow topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
House questions in‑stream flow bill on funding, priority and monitoring; bill circled for further work
Summary
Representative Barrington’s bill would let the Division of Wildlife Resources and Division of Parks and Recreation acquire existing water rights to leave water in streams for fish, recreation and aesthetic value. Members extensively questioned funding sources, whether agencies can appropriate new water, how monitoring would be handled and the effect on irrigation priorities; the House circled SB7 for further consideration.
The House spent substantial time questioning Senate Bill 7, which would allow the Division of Wildlife Resources and the Division of Parks and Recreation to acquire existing water rights and hold those rights for in‑stream flows to support fish propagation, recreation and the aesthetic preservation of stream channels.
Sponsor Representative Barrington said the bill permits acquisition of water rights "by donation or in whatever manner is possible" so they can be used to maintain in‑stream flows for fisheries, recreation and natural stream environment preservation. He and departmental witnesses emphasized the acquisition is limited to existing, perfected water rights — the bill does not authorize the agencies to appropriate new water rights.
Members pressed operational questions: whether the agencies can buy water rights that carry senior priority (and thereby change priority outcomes in drought years), who would monitor and enforce in‑stream flows, and whether purchases would force the state into competition with private irrigators. Witness Dee Hansen (called forward under a committee‑of‑the‑whole) explained the Division cannot appropriate new water for this purpose; it can only hold rights it lawfully acquires and that purchases or gifts would be subject to the state engineer’s oversight. Hansen told the chamber the division’s budget is primarily from license fees and it may also use federal funds (for example, Pittman‑Robertson or similar conservation funding) if the Legislature authorizes those expenditures.
Concerned members argued that if agencies purchased senior priority rights, that could change which users receive water in drought years; supporters said the state engineer and existing priority rules would be used to protect existing water users. After the expert exchange and extended procedural discussion, members moved to "circle" the bill for further work and the motion passed.
